Hi Charles,
> I don't believe this would fully address the issue since if you
> initialise ret to -1 you will still drop into the if statement
> and you will use the reg variable which should also be
> uninitialised on that code path.
>
> Feels like initialising to 0 would probably be better
Hi Charles,
> I don't believe this would fully address the issue since if you
> initialise ret to -1 you will still drop into the if statement
> and you will use the reg variable which should also be
> uninitialised on that code path.
>
> Feels like initialising to 0 would probably be better
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 04:13:53PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> There is a potential execution path in which variable *ret* is checked
> in an IF statement, and then its value is used to report an error at
> line 659 without being properly initialized previously:
>
> 659 if (ret)
> 660
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 04:13:53PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> There is a potential execution path in which variable *ret* is checked
> in an IF statement, and then its value is used to report an error at
> line 659 without being properly initialized previously:
>
> 659 if (ret)
> 660
There is a potential execution path in which variable *ret* is checked
in an IF statement, and then its value is used to report an error at
line 659 without being properly initialized previously:
659 if (ret)
660 dev_err(priv->dev, "Failed to write to 0x%x (%d)\n", reg, ret);
Fix this by
There is a potential execution path in which variable *ret* is checked
in an IF statement, and then its value is used to report an error at
line 659 without being properly initialized previously:
659 if (ret)
660 dev_err(priv->dev, "Failed to write to 0x%x (%d)\n", reg, ret);
Fix this by
6 matches
Mail list logo
